Revisit R**********r sales on BC?

[karlfer]

Mods, please delete if you think inappropriate. And my apologies if it is so.

Really just what it says above. Is it possible to review the situation regarding the forbidding of Rick sales here?
There have been a couple of comments requesting looking at allowing real ones to be sold again.
IE, possibly allowed after being vetted by a small committee of real bass and fakers experts.

I for one find it sad such an iconic instrument is missing from our sales section. And yes, I know all the original reasons for the ban.

Again Mods, apologies if I am out of order, the intent is not to stir it up, but perhaps to look to moving forward.
Cheers,
Karl.

Edited April 14, 2014 by karlfer

[JTUK]

ha ha..

But.... ........in all seriousnes, I have no idea why they are banned.

[simon1964]

[quote name='karlfer' timestamp='1397318412' post='2422782']
Mods, please delete if you think inappropriate. And my apologies if it is so.

Really just what it says above. Is it possible to review the situation regarding the forbidding of Rick sales here?
There have been a couple of comments requesting looking at allowing real ones to be sold again.
IE, possibly allowed after being vetted by a small committee of real bass and fakers experts.

I for one find it sad such an iconic instrument is missing from our sales section. And yes, I know all the original reasons for the ban.

Again Mods, apologies if I am out of order, the intent is not to stir it up, but perhaps to look to moving forward.
Cheers,
Karl.
[/quote]

+1 to all of that

[Marvin]

Can't see why the mods and owners would want to return to emails threatening legal action against the site. The ban on the brand probably makes their lives a lot quieter.

[LukeFRC]

a 70's-80's Jap copy is as much a valid instrument, and possibly as good, as one with the correct name on it. If the corp. are going to threaten legal action if these good and nice basses get advertised why should anyone else jump through hoops just so the corp's basses can be advertised? There are plenty of other places where real ones can be sold.

[HowieBass]

I thought the trouble was over Ric copies and not the real thing. There must be shops/dealers selling secondhand/vintage Rics and openly trading surely? Can't the BC rule be that real Rics are ok, sales of copies not allowed?

[Dad3353]

The story so far, taken from the topic alluded to above...

Part I...

[quote name='simon1964' timestamp='1397259401']
Reading this thread, a year on from Ricgate, is it time for the mods to revisit the ban? Only 171 members voted in favour of the ban out of a membership of 29,000. This thread is a stunning example of how amazing Rics can be. It is also a stunning example of what the for sale thread is missing, IMO.
[/quote]
[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1397261096']
Good evening, Simon...

Have the Ric company changed their policy of attacking in the courts any pictures of their protected trademarks..? If not, nothing has changed since the decision was taken, not by any number of members, but the admin team and owners of the site. What's been missing since..? Threats and injunctions from aforementioned company, that's what. Yes; it's certainly a darned shame. Without these threats we'd not be in such a situation. When pics of headstocks can be published without fear of court action maybe things will evolve; I'm not holding my breath.
Just my tuppence-worth.
[/quote]
[quote name='simon1964' timestamp='1397261580']
Blimey - sorry to have caused such a response. Spacey mentioned (rightly) Fender's late in the day action to protect their headstocks. Logically, should we ban everything with a Fender shaped headstock?! I was merely suggesting that it might be appropriate to re-consider the ban. But I don't want to re-open the debate, and no doubt this will, quite properly, be deleted from Secret's for sale thread.

Hey ho - don't want my posting privileges restricted again, so will keep my thoughts to myself...
[/quote]
[quote name='simon1964' timestamp='1397262102']
really? so what was the point of the highly divisive thread which is still pinned in off topic, and which invited all members to vote?
[/quote]
[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1397262330']
Simon...

No, no, chill out, buddy. There's nothing wrong with your question, nor (I hope..! ) with my reply. You're free to enquire, no sweat. In any case, I'm not 'the law' here, I'm simply responding to the query in my (clumsy..?) fashion. Fender..? For the moment, a different kettle of fish, and long may it stay that way, but if the site starts getting ordered to take down pics or face a tribunal, the policy would have to be seriously thought out, too. Re-consider the ban..? Why not, but if there's no change in the circumstances, I'd warrant that the conclusion would be the same..!
No need to 'keep your thoughts to yourself'; it's not the thought police here. The rules and regs show us how to behave, if our ordinary common curtesies aren't enough. Rock on..!
[/quote]

[Musicman20]

I'd still like one but not having them on here means I can't try a decent used one. I don't really want to go to ebay.

[chrismuzz]

I agree with all the sentiments. They ARE iconic basses, I'd wanted to try one for about 10 years before I'd actually got my hands on one and I wasn't disappointed with the sound or the look (It was a blue one by the way )

I don't know what the logistics would be like. I'm assuming that the reason they were banned was because it was either not possible, or would be extremely difficult to have a system in place where we were covered against any potential legal issues.

I do hope we can sort something out though!

[Dad3353]

Part II...

[quote name='simon1964' timestamp='1397262475']
I didn't think so - but I've been reprimanded for less!

Anyway - back to the sale of a very nice bass
[/quote]
[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1397262594']
This was to allow all to contribute to the awareness and discussion, and served admirably that purpose; it was not a 'legal referendum', nor presented as such. Some very salient points were raised during that process. The final decision rests, however, with those responsible for the site. It all seems perfectly normal to me (but then again, perhaps I would say that, wouldn't I..? ).
I think that all this ground has already been covered, though. I was only trying to answer the question, that's all.
[/quote]

[KiOgon]

The problem remains the same - the amount of aggravation regardless of whether or no it's an original - is not worth it to 'us the forum', it's owners, those who are liable/likely to get screwed by JH & his mega buck solicitors.

[Dad3353]

Part III...

[quote name='simon1964' timestamp='1397263146']
I absolutely agree with all of that - as my contributions to the Rickenbacker ban thread will show.

But out of 29,000 members something like 170 vote for the ban and 110 against. What that means, on any analysis, is that the vast majority of Basschat members don't give a monkey's about the issue. Given the interest in this thread, are we really saying that the ban can never be revisited?

But as I say, i will keep my thoughts to myself given previous pro-Rickenbacker related bans.
[/quote]
[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1397266083']
Simon...

Without wishing to labour the point, I'd say that, although perhaps regrettable that so few (in your view...) "...don't give a monkey's...", that's rather begging the question. The real question is "Do the Ric folks give a monkey's..?". The legal actions are not the concern of the general membership, but of those responsible for the site. There are many other issues with legal implications (pornography, defamation, libel and slander, sale of firearms; there's lots more...) that affect the posting regulations here. If any of these issues have a change of position, or if new issues arise, they're quite naturally and rightly taken on board. As far as I know, there's been no change in the Ric position from Ric Corps, it's as simple as that. Unfortunate, surely, but I, for one, have no leverage on those folks. If things change, I'm sure we'll all know about it, and could rejoice. Until then, status quo, I think.
[/quote]
[quote name='karlfer' timestamp='1397284256']
+1 on ALL points.
I deleted a comment from this thread but Simon has given me the courage to risk it. Is it not possible to graft a couple of real experts to vet and authorise (or not), sales adverts for REAL Rickenbackers ONLY? For instance an expert on real Ricks, an expert on fakers. Perhaps Mr. Hall may even be included?
Under that system something as stunning and obviously real as this one, would be allowed. Yes, I know it's not the place, so,
BUMP!
Now, how far is Worcester from Wigan .
[/quote]
[quote name='Beedster' timestamp='1397284798']
How about checking the status of this? At the time of the ban here nearly every bass that looked like a Ric but wasn't a Ric (i.e., a 'Rickenfaker') was removed from eBay within hours of being listed. As I posted in the Faker thread here a while back, this seems to have changed with far more - possibly all - being allowed to remain until the auction closes. Might Ric have softened their stance, or might eBay have turned around and said "OK then, sue us". There's a difference between the threat of legal action and legal action - I spoke to a very well known guitar maker a while back who's been threatened by Fender but who said that until they actually take legal action he'll carry on (he had also checked Fender's ground and suspected that outside of the USA they were unlikely to be successful and was confident that they also knew this which is why they hadn't taken action).

Either way, I genuinely don't see why we can't advertise Rics for sale, and if Ric Corps suspect one's fake, it can't be removed from sale unless the owner can provide mods with a serial number. OK, a bit of extra work, but I'm sure one more mod - with the necessary Ric-spertise - could be recruited to do the job?
[/quote]
[quote name='Beedster' timestamp='1397284943']
Great minds eh Karl
[/quote]

I shall delete the originals of these, as they were in the wrong place (my own posts included...).

Edited April 12, 2014 by Dad3353

[chrismuzz]

[quote name='HowieBass' timestamp='1397320654' post='2422813']
I thought the trouble was over Ric copies and not the real thing. There must be shops/dealers selling secondhand/vintage Rics and openly trading surely? Can't the BC rule be that real Rics are ok, sales of copies not allowed?
[/quote]

I totally agree. The problem is that even if somebody unknowingly puts up a copy for sale, we'd still be liable.

[LukeFRC]

[quote name='hiram.k.hackenbacker' timestamp='1397320513' post='2422811']
To me this clouds the issue. I think the only thing we need to be concerned about is....
Is there a problem with the act of advertising for sale a genuine Rickenbacker product? I don't think there is.
I was a reasonably quiet observer when the ban was originally discussed and I am aware of the issues with fakers, but that's not relevant to the question.
If, for example, someone wanted to sell a nice low number Chris Squire with original case, candy and certificate ;-) I think they should be allowed to do it.
I miss checking into the porn section to see geo's latest "best Rick ever" only to see it in the for sale section the week after.
I don't even think geo's been around here that much since Rick's were banned.
[/quote] But equally is there a problem at all with the act of advertising for sale a secondhand japanese/italian/british rickenfaker from the 70's or 80's? Under both European and British law there is no problem with that at all.

[LukeFRC]

[quote name='Musicman20' timestamp='1397321769' post='2422826']
I'd still like one but not having them on here means I can't try a decent used one. I don't really want to go to ebay.
[/quote] surely theres someone up in the north east with one you could invite yourself around to play with?

[chriswareham]

I wouldn't be happy to allow Rickenbacker sales on Basschat until RIC acknowledge that they are not legally entitled to block the private sale of other basses that bear a resemblance to theirs. Threatening legal action against the people who run Basschat really disgusted me, since RIC must know that their grounds for doing so are sketchy at best in the EU, and are therefore just using their greater financial resources to initimidate. That's my tuppence worth on the matter anyway.

[Marvin]

[quote name='KiOgon' timestamp='1397321834' post='2422831']
The problem remains the same - the amount of aggravation regardless of whether or no it's an original - is not worth it to 'us the forum', it's owners, those who are liable/likely to get screwed by JH & his mega buck solicitors.
[/quote]
[quote name='chriswareham' timestamp='1397322679' post='2422845']
I wouldn't be happy to allow Rickenbacker sales on Basschat until RIC acknowledge that they are not legally entitled to block the private sale of other basses that bear a resemblance to theirs. Threatening legal action against the people who run Basschat really disgusted me, since RIC must know that their grounds for doing so are sketchy at best in the EU, and are therefore just using their greater financial resources to initimidate. That's my tuppence worth on the matter anyway.
[/quote]

Spot on.

[chriswareham]

[quote name='HowieBass' timestamp='1397320654' post='2422813'] I thought the trouble was over Ric copies and not the real thing. There must be shops/dealers selling secondhand/vintage Rics and openly trading surely? Can't the BC rule be that real Rics are ok, sales of copies not allowed? [/quote]

It's not just out an out fakers, if you can't categorically prove your instrument is a genuine Rickenbacker you run the risk of having the listing pulled on eBay or Gumtree. My suspicion is that RIC are trying to make it hard to trade real second hand Rickenbackers in order to restrict supply even further and push up the prices they can charge for new examples.

Edited April 12, 2014 by chriswareham

[geofio]

thanks to Hiram for the wonderful comments !!! not having rics for sale on BC makes the for sale section boring, same old basses for sale week after week. and i want to advertise the latest walnut model to annoy Hiram.

[icastle]

Whilst the threat remains there won't be a change in BC policy regarding this.

It's not about who's 'right' or 'wrong', it's about who has the most money to fight a legal battle and it's both unfair and unrealistic to expect the owners of BC to have that fight.

[geofio]

John Hall has won either way you look at it, he does not care one jot if rics are advertised on here or not, it will not affect him in the slightest, the losers are the genuine advertisers, buyers and sellers !!!

[Dingus]

I have no interest in buying or selling Rickenbackers, real or fake, so I am not bothered either way, but I wonder why they seem to be able to trade Ricks with impunity over on Talkbass?

Edited April 12, 2014 by Dingus

[steve-bbb]

who is imp unity and why does he/she need so many ricks ?

Edited April 12, 2014 by steve-bbb

[Dingus]

[quote name='geofio' timestamp='1397324246' post='2422869']
John Hall has won either way you look at it, he does not care one jot if rics are advertised on here or not, it will not affect him in the slightest, the losers are the genuine advertisers, buyers and sellers !!!
[/quote][quote name='geofio' timestamp='1397324246' post='2422869']
John Hall has won either way you look at it, he does not care one jot if rics are advertised on here or not, it will not affect him in the slightest, the losers are the genuine advertisers, buyers and sellers !!!
[/quote]

John Hall stands to benefit a great deal by stifling the secondhand market in his basses. It can only serve to help the sales of new ones.

[Musicman20]

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1397325215' post='2422884']
John Hall stands to benefit a great deal by stifling the secondhand market in his basses. It can only serve to help the sales of new ones.
[/quote]

Ay...look at my position, I can't buy off here and I've been eyeing up new ones. I won't bite until I know its going to be the right one though.